Like everyone else concerned with the non-school AP sector, I’ve been reflecting on the implications of the government’s drive towards all children receiving their education in school. Since January, providers have been wrestling with the challenges of delivering strictly time-limited programmes; additionally there are widespread concerns among providers, commissioners and families about how mainstream settings will meet the needs of many of the most vulnerable children. I share these concerns and remain unsettled about the potential for harm in these plans, however well-intentioned they are.

Let’s accept, however, that there are children who will benefit from short-term  AP interventions followed by successful reintegration into their referring school. Many years ago I oversaw a time-limited intervention programme for children at risk of permanent exclusion from mainstream secondary school. All of the children on the course had SEMH barriers to inclusion in mainstream, some were diagnosed with SEND conditions including ASC and ADHD, many experienced developmental trauma.  For a range of reasons, none of these children were thriving in mainstream, but all had the potential to remain on a mainstream roll given the right support.

Children attended the programme 2 days a week and school on the remaining 3 days. The initiative wasn’t an easy option, it entailed a challenging combination of SEAL elements which required children to reflect on their behaviour, the complex factors behind it, and its impact on those around them. Not all those referred were able to finish the programme but there were  great outcomes for children who stayed the course – with a high percentage of participants returning to school full time and still maintaining their school places a term after completion. It strikes me that this programme was a model of what the government is proposing for the non-school AP sector.

The vast majority of children on the programme, when interviewed at the referral stage, self-identified as ‘naughty’ or ‘problem’ pupils; they had internalised widely expressed and long-held views about them and these had become accurate predictors of their behaviour at school. Post-course tracking showed us that one of the toughest tests for children when they returned to school was managing the ways in which they were perceived by teachers and peers and the impact this had on their ongoing self-perception as learners. There was a stigma in being referred to the programme, and the view of some school staff was that it represented a ‘soft’ consequence for problem behaviour; this sometimes caused children, who had spent weeks making good choices on their AP days, to realise that some staff, and peers at school hadn’t changed their opinions of them. Participants’ frustration and sense of injustice around this could trigger relapse in terms of attitudes and ability to cope in school; for some children this was insurmountable, even with their newly acquired insights and skills.

The key to managing transitions successfully was the quality of relationships between programme staff and school staff, and between programme staff and parents/carers. A crucial part of the work was to visit schools and families – before, during and after the run of a programme. When parents and schools understand the content and  purpose of the intervention, and can see the progress a child is making, buy-in is created. On our programme a cycle of school visits and family drop-ins was in place; parents and school staff were invited to end of course ‘graduation’ ceremonies where pupils presented on their experiences and their achievements were celebrated with speeches and a compilation video of course highlights for each child. These are not easy relationships to build. Parents whose children have been referred to non-school AP inevitably have had difficult experiences with schools; by the same token schools have struggled to manage these children’s needs. There are barriers to good communication and we saw it as part of our responsibility, as specialists in breaking down obstacles to inclusion, to offer opportunities for all parties to work together in shared concern for the children. In our provision staff supported pupils, parents and carers throughout the process and for a set period afterwards, in order to help them navigate the transition back into full time school.

Our data evidenced the transformative potential of time-limited AP placements for some children. Our experience showed that progress for children who face barriers to inclusion is precarious and requires intensive support throughout the process, and beyond; it requires authentic partnership between parents, school and the AP provider, and a commitment to creating workable solutions in school as well as out of it.

As I reflect on my experiences managing a short-term intervention initiative, I am struck by the magnitude of the task which would face schools, families and providers if they were to achieve successful reintegration for children whose complex SEND has meant significant absence from registered settings. A high level of commitment is necessary in schools to reintegrate children whose capacity to manage in mainstream is fragile. It is difficult to imagine how the same model will produce positive outcomes for the intensely marginalised and vulnerable children for whom non-school AP has been the only education they have been able to access.  It’s likely that commissioning schools will need to be realistic about the pace and types of positive outcomes for children who have been out of mainstream school for a long time already. The DFE and Ofsted will need to take a common sense approach to phasing out longer term intensive AP placements where these have been the only access to education a pupil will have had for long periods. This will need to happen as part of a longer term plan rather than an immediate rupture. The 3 phase timeline published in the White Paper: Every child achieving and thriving is ambitious – with an expectation that reforms will be fully implemented by the academic year 2028/29; many working in the sector suspect that this is unrealistic.